Pub Date : 2022-06-24DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2091471
J. Creedy, S. Subramanian
This paper introduces a new mortality curve to illustrate and measure mortality and its relation to age. The curve is a form of ‘concentration curve’, and plots the proportion of total deaths against the corresponding proportion of people, where individuals are arranged from youngest to oldest. A mortality index is based on the normalised area measure of the distance of the concentration curve from a ‘best case’ scenario. Results analogous to Lorenz orderings (in the context of income distribution) are derived. The measure is illustrated using mortality data for several countries. The aim is to supplement the standard Crude Death Rate with a ‘mortality-inefficiency’ measure in a composite index of mortality which attends to both the mean and the dispersion of an age-distribution of deaths.
{"title":"Mortality comparisons and age: a new mortality curve","authors":"J. Creedy, S. Subramanian","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2091471","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2091471","url":null,"abstract":"This paper introduces a new mortality curve to illustrate and measure mortality and its relation to age. The curve is a form of ‘concentration curve’, and plots the proportion of total deaths against the corresponding proportion of people, where individuals are arranged from youngest to oldest. A mortality index is based on the normalised area measure of the distance of the concentration curve from a ‘best case’ scenario. Results analogous to Lorenz orderings (in the context of income distribution) are derived. The measure is illustrated using mortality data for several countries. The aim is to supplement the standard Crude Death Rate with a ‘mortality-inefficiency’ measure in a composite index of mortality which attends to both the mean and the dispersion of an age-distribution of deaths.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43988082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-23DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2091469
Omoniyi B. Alimi, David C. Maré, J. Poot
ABSTRACT New Zealand experienced strong growth in immigration since the 1990s, until the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a two-year phase of near-zero migration. Growing concern about the impact of immigration on various social and economic outcomes has led to a review of the evidence and related policies. One area of concern is the extent to which immigration impacts on the distribution of income - given that inequality increased notably since the 1980s. In this paper we take into account that immigration is spatially selective and compare the contribution of migrant groups (including New Zealand born persons returning from abroad) to income inequality in metropolitan areas with that contribution in non-metropolitan urban areas. We use two different decomposition methods and compare results. We find with both methods that migrant groups made inequality-increasing contributions to overall income inequality. These contributions are larger in metropolitan areas than in other urban. However, changes in the skill distribution, including those brought about by immigration, have more important implications for the distribution of income. High-skilled groups (whether New Zealand born or foreign born) have made inequality-increasing contributions to the distribution of income, particularly in metropolitan areas.
{"title":"International migration and income distribution in New Zealand metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas","authors":"Omoniyi B. Alimi, David C. Maré, J. Poot","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2091469","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2091469","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT New Zealand experienced strong growth in immigration since the 1990s, until the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a two-year phase of near-zero migration. Growing concern about the impact of immigration on various social and economic outcomes has led to a review of the evidence and related policies. One area of concern is the extent to which immigration impacts on the distribution of income - given that inequality increased notably since the 1980s. In this paper we take into account that immigration is spatially selective and compare the contribution of migrant groups (including New Zealand born persons returning from abroad) to income inequality in metropolitan areas with that contribution in non-metropolitan urban areas. We use two different decomposition methods and compare results. We find with both methods that migrant groups made inequality-increasing contributions to overall income inequality. These contributions are larger in metropolitan areas than in other urban. However, changes in the skill distribution, including those brought about by immigration, have more important implications for the distribution of income. High-skilled groups (whether New Zealand born or foreign born) have made inequality-increasing contributions to the distribution of income, particularly in metropolitan areas.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47154996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2081591
P. Walker
The 1500–1970 literature on the theory of production/the firm can be usefully divided into four approaches to the positive analysis of production or the firm: aggregate production, market structure, the representative firm and micro-production. Each approach will be examined to establish the nature and development of the approach and the relationships between them.
{"title":"(Almost) everything you wanted to know about the history of the theory of production/the firm: but were afraid (too bored) to ask","authors":"P. Walker","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2081591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2081591","url":null,"abstract":"The 1500–1970 literature on the theory of production/the firm can be usefully divided into four approaches to the positive analysis of production or the firm: aggregate production, market structure, the representative firm and micro-production. Each approach will be examined to establish the nature and development of the approach and the relationships between them.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48670531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-23DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2077812
J. Gibson
New Zealand adopted a policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for workers in many sectors. Existing analysis suggests expected costs of this mandate policy far outweigh benefits. This paper discusses an issue potentially contributing to adoption of this costly vaccine mandate policy. There is a widespread public misunderstanding about the testing the vaccines underwent in the pivotal trials underpinning their approval, with over 95% of New Zealand’s voting-age public believing that the vaccines were tested against more demanding criteria than was actually the case. Consequently, public expectations about performance of these vaccines were likely inflated, and expected benefits of vaccine mandates may have been overstated. The ambiguous evidence on effects of COVID-19 vaccination on mortality risk also highlights the importance of these informational problems. If the public misunderstanding described here persists, a continuation of inefficient vaccine mandates whose costs exceed benefits is likely.
{"title":"Public misunderstanding of pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trials may contribute to New Zealand’s adoption of a costly and economically inefficient vaccine mandate","authors":"J. Gibson","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2077812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2077812","url":null,"abstract":"New Zealand adopted a policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for workers in many sectors. Existing analysis suggests expected costs of this mandate policy far outweigh benefits. This paper discusses an issue potentially contributing to adoption of this costly vaccine mandate policy. There is a widespread public misunderstanding about the testing the vaccines underwent in the pivotal trials underpinning their approval, with over 95% of New Zealand’s voting-age public believing that the vaccines were tested against more demanding criteria than was actually the case. Consequently, public expectations about performance of these vaccines were likely inflated, and expected benefits of vaccine mandates may have been overstated. The ambiguous evidence on effects of COVID-19 vaccination on mortality risk also highlights the importance of these informational problems. If the public misunderstanding described here persists, a continuation of inefficient vaccine mandates whose costs exceed benefits is likely.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42114316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-05DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2063163
Tinh Doan, Mark J. Holmes, Van Ha, T. Tran
This paper investigates net wealth of the New Zealand-born (NZ-born) migrants relative to that of Australia-born, and other migrants in Australia. We consider how the free cross-border labour movement between Australia and New Zealand affects the wealth accumulating behaviour of NZ migrants. Our findings indicate that the NZ-born have lower net wealth than both the Australia-born and other migrants. The net wealth differential between the NZ- and Australia-born is mainly explained by the structure effect than from the composition effect (due to differences in observed characteristics, which are similar in both groups). In contrast, comparing with other migrants, the contribution of observed characteristics such as education, age, household composition, weekly wage, and long-term health conditions dominates the overall NZ-born’s net wealth differentials.
{"title":"How New Zealand migrants fare in Australia: what explains their wealth gap?","authors":"Tinh Doan, Mark J. Holmes, Van Ha, T. Tran","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2063163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2063163","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates net wealth of the New Zealand-born (NZ-born) migrants relative to that of Australia-born, and other migrants in Australia. We consider how the free cross-border labour movement between Australia and New Zealand affects the wealth accumulating behaviour of NZ migrants. Our findings indicate that the NZ-born have lower net wealth than both the Australia-born and other migrants. The net wealth differential between the NZ- and Australia-born is mainly explained by the structure effect than from the composition effect (due to differences in observed characteristics, which are similar in both groups). In contrast, comparing with other migrants, the contribution of observed characteristics such as education, age, household composition, weekly wage, and long-term health conditions dominates the overall NZ-born’s net wealth differentials.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46234968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-18DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2063164
Penny Mok, G. Pacheco
This research note investigates income-replacement rates provided by the New Zealand welfare system when an individual loses their employment. We utilise New Zealand Treasury’s microsimulation model, based on tax and transfer rules from April 2018 to March 2019, for a variety of household scenarios. Results indicate that replacement rates are higher (above 50 percent) for those with children and for those earning low and median wage rates. These findings are highly relevant to policymakers, as they provide indicators of the adequacy of the welfare system and can inform design aspects of a potential unemployment insurance scheme.
{"title":"Income protection in the New Zealand tax-transfer system","authors":"Penny Mok, G. Pacheco","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2063164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2063164","url":null,"abstract":"This research note investigates income-replacement rates provided by the New Zealand welfare system when an individual loses their employment. We utilise New Zealand Treasury’s microsimulation model, based on tax and transfer rules from April 2018 to March 2019, for a variety of household scenarios. Results indicate that replacement rates are higher (above 50 percent) for those with children and for those earning low and median wage rates. These findings are highly relevant to policymakers, as they provide indicators of the adequacy of the welfare system and can inform design aspects of a potential unemployment insurance scheme.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42620089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-23DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2034175
Le Wen, S. Maani
In this paper we systematically evaluate the impact of using the alternative methods conventionally used in the international literature on the measured incidence of educational mismatch and its earnings effects. We use a rich Australian longitudinal data set for a controlled group of full-time employed workers. Using panel data estimation, we address individual heterogeneity and measurement error, which are important in educational mismatch analysis. We show that alternative methods of measurement result in a range of estimates, with the Mode measure providing the most stable results across instrumental variables (IV) selections in panel fixed effects instrumental variables (FEIV) estimations. Based on the Mode measure, the incidence rate of over-education is 32.3%. The earnings penalty for each year of over-education is 2.5%, which is larger than 0.6% in fixed effect estimation and also larger than 1.9% in OLS estimations.
{"title":"Earnings penalty of educational mismatch: a comparison of alternative methods of assessing over-education","authors":"Le Wen, S. Maani","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2034175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2034175","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we systematically evaluate the impact of using the alternative methods conventionally used in the international literature on the measured incidence of educational mismatch and its earnings effects. We use a rich Australian longitudinal data set for a controlled group of full-time employed workers. Using panel data estimation, we address individual heterogeneity and measurement error, which are important in educational mismatch analysis. We show that alternative methods of measurement result in a range of estimates, with the Mode measure providing the most stable results across instrumental variables (IV) selections in panel fixed effects instrumental variables (FEIV) estimations. Based on the Mode measure, the incidence rate of over-education is 32.3%. The earnings penalty for each year of over-education is 2.5%, which is larger than 0.6% in fixed effect estimation and also larger than 1.9% in OLS estimations.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43225975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-10DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2021.2020324
Alastair Thomas
The merits of New Zealand moving away from its broad-based single-rate GST structure – particularly by removing GST on food – are often raised in public discourse and political campaigns. This paper investigates who would benefit from the introduction of a multi-rate GST structure in New Zealand and, in particular, whether reduced GST rates would be a more effective way of providing support to poorer households than New Zealand’s current income-tested tax credit approach. Behavioural simulation results from a QUAIDS model confirm previous findings that applying reduced GST rates to food and beverages would have a small progressive effect, but that richer households would benefit more than poorer households in aggregate terms. Meanwhile, reduced GST rates applied to recreational and cultural expenditure would have a regressive effect. Additional simulation results clearly show that the family tax credit is a far superior mechanism for providing support to poorer households than reduced GST rates. New Zealand should therefore maintain its current approach of a broad-based single-rate GST and income-tested tax credits.
{"title":"Who would win from a multi-rate GST in New Zealand: evidence from a QUAIDS model*","authors":"Alastair Thomas","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2021.2020324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2021.2020324","url":null,"abstract":"The merits of New Zealand moving away from its broad-based single-rate GST structure – particularly by removing GST on food – are often raised in public discourse and political campaigns. This paper investigates who would benefit from the introduction of a multi-rate GST structure in New Zealand and, in particular, whether reduced GST rates would be a more effective way of providing support to poorer households than New Zealand’s current income-tested tax credit approach. Behavioural simulation results from a QUAIDS model confirm previous findings that applying reduced GST rates to food and beverages would have a small progressive effect, but that richer households would benefit more than poorer households in aggregate terms. Meanwhile, reduced GST rates applied to recreational and cultural expenditure would have a regressive effect. Additional simulation results clearly show that the family tax credit is a far superior mechanism for providing support to poorer households than reduced GST rates. New Zealand should therefore maintain its current approach of a broad-based single-rate GST and income-tested tax credits.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45660723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2034177
J. Gibson
In their comment on my paper ‘Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response’ Hendy, Wiles, Binny and Plank [hereafter HWBP] (Hendy et al, 2022) make several incorrect claims. I deal with these in the second part of this response. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of their comment is the fact that out of their 27 references just one is to a study in an economics journal or working paper series; the reference to my own paper. Some of their confusion that I discuss belowmight perhaps have been avoided if they had made greater use of the economics literature. There are at least two interpretations of this failure to cite economics studies. The first is that HWBP are willing to insert themselves into the scholarly conversation of a discipline in which they have no background but lack the scholarly politeness to acknowledge literature in that discipline.1 The second interpretation, which is even more disturbing, is that these authors actually believe that economics has nothing to say, in the sense there are no findings in the economics literature either more broadly or specifically related to Covid-19 that merit their attention. IfHWBPwere unknown academics, questions ofwhether they are conscientious and careful scholars who acknowledge relevant prior findings in the literature they publish into, and whether they have a skewed view of what economics can offer for crafting responses to Covid-19, could probably be ignored and the lack of citation to any economics literature in their comment could be put down to an oversight. However, three of these authors (all except Binny) have assumed dominating positions in public discussions in New Zealand related to Covid-19. A review of advice on Covid-19 received by the New Zealand government (Lally, 2021) notes that the research centre that links the HWBP authors, Te Punaha Matatini (TPM), came to displace public health academics as the source of technical advice on Covid-19. Yet authors of the key initial TPM study (James, Hendy, Plank, & Steyn, 2020), which includes two of HWBP, had no prior record of producing cost benefit analyses (CBA) of health interventions. Other commentators, such as Brash (2021) have also noted that the New Zealand government took Covid-19 advice from some unlikely sources, while neglecting input from economists. Thus, there may be something in the HWBP comment of interest to a future historian trying to explain why economists were so absent from the public discussion in New Zealand about appropriate responses to Covid-19. Relatedly, a future historian might note Hendy’s response to a later critique of the implausible prediction of 83,000 Covid-19 deaths in New Zealand without interventions (as made by TPM in James et al., 2020), where the response was to deride the critique by saying it is: ‘one for the economists-shouldn’t-do-epidemiology files’.2 If some of these influential advisors have
Hendy、Wiles、Binny和Plank（以下简称HWBP）（Hendy等人，2022）在他们对我的论文《政府强制封锁并不能减少新冠肺炎死亡人数：对评估新西兰严格应对措施的影响》的评论中提出了几个不正确的说法。我在本答复的第二部分处理这些问题。也许他们评论中最不幸的一点是，在他们的27篇参考文献中，只有一篇是经济学期刊或系列工作论文中的一项研究；参考我自己的论文。如果他们更多地利用经济学文献，我下面讨论的他们的一些困惑也许可以避免。对于这种未能引用经济学研究的现象，至少有两种解释。首先，HWBP愿意将自己插入到一个学科的学术对话中，在这个学科中，他们没有背景，但缺乏承认该学科文学的学术礼貌。1更令人不安的第二种解释是，这些作者实际上认为经济学无话可说，从这个意义上说，经济学文献中没有更广泛或更具体地与新冠肺炎相关的研究结果值得他们关注。如果HWBP是不知名的学者，那么他们是否是认真仔细的学者，承认他们发表的文献中的相关先前发现，以及他们是否对经济学可以为制定应对新冠肺炎的措施提供什么有偏见，可能会被忽视，他们的评论中没有引用任何经济学文献可能会被归咎于疏忽。然而，其中三位作者（除宾尼外）在新西兰与新冠肺炎有关的公开讨论中占据了主导地位。新西兰政府收到的关于新冠肺炎的建议综述（Lally，2021）指出，与HWBP作者Te Punaha Matatini（TPM）联系在一起的研究中心取代了公共卫生学者，成为新冠肺炎技术建议的来源。然而，关键的初始TPM研究（James，Hendy，Plank，&Steyn，2020）的作者，包括两名HWBP，之前没有进行健康干预成本效益分析（CBA）的记录。Brash（2021）等其他评论员也指出，新西兰政府接受了一些不太可能的来源提供的新冠肺炎建议，同时忽视了经济学家的意见。因此，HWBP的评论中可能有一些内容引起了未来历史学家的兴趣，他们试图解释为什么经济学家如此缺席新西兰关于应对新冠肺炎的公众讨论。与此相关的是，一位未来的历史学家可能会注意到Hendy对后来对新西兰8.3万例新冠肺炎死亡病例的不可信预测的回应（正如TPM在James et al.，2020中所做的那样），其中的回应是嘲笑这一评论，称其为：“一个给经济学家的——不应该是经济学文件”
{"title":"Rebuttal of Hendy, Wiles, Binny and Plank","authors":"J. Gibson","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2034177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2034177","url":null,"abstract":"In their comment on my paper ‘Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response’ Hendy, Wiles, Binny and Plank [hereafter HWBP] (Hendy et al, 2022) make several incorrect claims. I deal with these in the second part of this response. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of their comment is the fact that out of their 27 references just one is to a study in an economics journal or working paper series; the reference to my own paper. Some of their confusion that I discuss belowmight perhaps have been avoided if they had made greater use of the economics literature. There are at least two interpretations of this failure to cite economics studies. The first is that HWBP are willing to insert themselves into the scholarly conversation of a discipline in which they have no background but lack the scholarly politeness to acknowledge literature in that discipline.1 The second interpretation, which is even more disturbing, is that these authors actually believe that economics has nothing to say, in the sense there are no findings in the economics literature either more broadly or specifically related to Covid-19 that merit their attention. IfHWBPwere unknown academics, questions ofwhether they are conscientious and careful scholars who acknowledge relevant prior findings in the literature they publish into, and whether they have a skewed view of what economics can offer for crafting responses to Covid-19, could probably be ignored and the lack of citation to any economics literature in their comment could be put down to an oversight. However, three of these authors (all except Binny) have assumed dominating positions in public discussions in New Zealand related to Covid-19. A review of advice on Covid-19 received by the New Zealand government (Lally, 2021) notes that the research centre that links the HWBP authors, Te Punaha Matatini (TPM), came to displace public health academics as the source of technical advice on Covid-19. Yet authors of the key initial TPM study (James, Hendy, Plank, & Steyn, 2020), which includes two of HWBP, had no prior record of producing cost benefit analyses (CBA) of health interventions. Other commentators, such as Brash (2021) have also noted that the New Zealand government took Covid-19 advice from some unlikely sources, while neglecting input from economists. Thus, there may be something in the HWBP comment of interest to a future historian trying to explain why economists were so absent from the public discussion in New Zealand about appropriate responses to Covid-19. Relatedly, a future historian might note Hendy’s response to a later critique of the implausible prediction of 83,000 Covid-19 deaths in New Zealand without interventions (as made by TPM in James et al., 2020), where the response was to deride the critique by saying it is: ‘one for the economists-shouldn’t-do-epidemiology files’.2 If some of these influential advisors have","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47855191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2022.2034176
S. Hendy, S. Wiles, Rachelle N. Binny, M. Plank
In ‘Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response’ (New Zealand Economic Papers, 2020), Gibson claims that ‘Lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths’ on the basis of an instrument variable linear regression on county-level cross-sectional data in the United States. Here we argue that Gibson’s analysis is not robust. In particular, Gibson (i) neglects the spatio-temporal heterogeneity in the spread of COVID-19 in the United States, namely that spread was from well-connected urban counties to more isolated rural counties; (ii) selects cross-sections at arbitrary times from what is an on-going spatially heterogeneous dynamical process, introducing bias that he fails to control for; and (iii) makes a choice of instrument variable (political affiliation) that is correlated with the heterogeneity (and therefore the bias) and that could plausibly influence the output variable in his regression independently of the explanatory variable.
{"title":"Comment on ‘Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response’","authors":"S. Hendy, S. Wiles, Rachelle N. Binny, M. Plank","doi":"10.1080/00779954.2022.2034176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2022.2034176","url":null,"abstract":"In ‘Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response’ (New Zealand Economic Papers, 2020), Gibson claims that ‘Lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths’ on the basis of an instrument variable linear regression on county-level cross-sectional data in the United States. Here we argue that Gibson’s analysis is not robust. In particular, Gibson (i) neglects the spatio-temporal heterogeneity in the spread of COVID-19 in the United States, namely that spread was from well-connected urban counties to more isolated rural counties; (ii) selects cross-sections at arbitrary times from what is an on-going spatially heterogeneous dynamical process, introducing bias that he fails to control for; and (iii) makes a choice of instrument variable (political affiliation) that is correlated with the heterogeneity (and therefore the bias) and that could plausibly influence the output variable in his regression independently of the explanatory variable.","PeriodicalId":38921,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Economic Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45816851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：